澳门跑狗论坛

Education organizations, civil rights groups, and scholars were among those filing a total of 57 friend-of-the-court briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court by the Oct. 10 deadline in support of race-conscious policies of the Seattle and Jefferson County, Ky., school districts.

In a pair of nationally watched cases that the court is scheduled to hear Dec. 4, the districts are defending their voluntary school assignment plans that use race as a tool to promote diversity.

鈥淭he locally elected board, steeped in the history of Seattle鈥檚 integration measures, made a careful and realistic judgment about the benefits and burdens of various student-assignment plans and determined that for the 2001-02 school year, race-neutral plans could not effectively achieve its three compelling interests and also accommodate its other important educational goals,鈥� said the district鈥檚 brief, which was also filed this month.

Seattle鈥檚 plan allows students to choose their preferred high schools, but, when a selected school is oversubscribed, the district uses race as a tie-breaker in determining whether a student can attend it.

Jefferson County鈥檚 plan classifies students as 鈥渂lack鈥� or 鈥渙ther,鈥� and does not permit a student to enroll in a school if his or her presence would push its black enrollment below 15 percent or above 50 percent.

Defining the Issues

On the other side, the families of students who were denied their preferred schools under the two plans and who brought the cases now before the Supreme Court were backed by 11 friend-of-the-court briefs filed in August. The Bush administration also filed briefs in support of Parents Involved in Community Schools, an organization of Seattle families, and a lone parent, Crystal D. Meredith, and her son in Jefferson County, which includes Louisville. (鈥淒iversity on the Docket,鈥� Oct. 4, 2006.)

They contend that the use of race as a factor in assigning students to schools violates the right of equal protection of the law under the U.S. Constitution鈥檚 14th Amendment, a point picked up in several supporting briefs.

鈥淓ven if enacted with the best of intentions and thought to be benign, racial classifications and preferences can be the most divisive of all policies, containing within them the power to destroy confidence in the Constitution and in the idea of equality,鈥� states the brief supporting the families by the Project on Fair Representation at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington.

The briefs on both sides all seek to define the legal battleground on racial diversity and to influence the justices in their favor in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (Case No. 05-908) and Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education (No. 05-915).

They discuss how previous court decisions have dealt with similar uses of race, notably the Supreme Court鈥檚 2003 decisions in two cases on the use of race in college admissions.

In Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger, the court weighed the constitutionality of the University of Michigan鈥檚 undergraduate college and law school admissions policies, which took race into account in different ways. The rulings upheld race-based affirmative action in principle but struck down some aspects of Michigan鈥檚 admission policies.

Then-Justice Sandra Day O鈥機onnor was the pivotal vote in those cases, and her citation of friend-of-the-court briefs filed by U.S. corporations and retired generals in support of race-conscious admissions policies proved that such briefs could be influential.

鈥楾he Wrong Message鈥�

In its brief supporting the parents challenging the Seattle plan, the Pacific Legal Foundation, a legal-advocacy organization based in Sacramento, Calif., argues that the high court鈥檚 principles from the Michigan cases should apply only to higher education and not to K-12 public schools.

鈥淏y discounting equal protection, Seattle鈥檚 public schools are sending the wrong message to our children鈥攖hat racial discrimination is more important than individual rights and liberties in today鈥檚 society,鈥� concludes its brief.

The Center for Individual Rights, a public-interest law firm based in Washington, says in its brief backing the families that 鈥渢he Seattle plan denies certain students the opportunity to attend their first-choice school because of their race.鈥�

鈥淲hether those denied are 鈥榳hite鈥� or 鈥榦ther than white,鈥� 鈥� the center argues, 鈥渢heir personal rights are violated by a system erecting skin color as a criterion for allocating this limited resource.鈥�

Some prominent education groups filed briefs on the side of the school districts.

The Council of the Great City Schools, a Washington-based group that represents 66 urban districts, argues that districts have a 鈥渃ompelling interest in promoting racially integrated schools鈥� because, first, 鈥渁s all three branches of the federal government recognize, assuring equal educational opportunities to all children, regardless of race, is a national priority.鈥�

The brief says that such a priority is undermined by racial isolation in schools, which schools cannot address if they are denied a 鈥渕odest鈥� use of race, such as that provided in the student-assignment plans, to counter the effects of segregated housing patterns.

Social Science Evidence

Leading civil rights groups also rallied around the school districts. The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, for example, argues that if the Supreme Court accepts the families鈥� argument that the use of race to achieve diversity is unconstitutional, districts will be prohibited from adopting voluntarily the same policies that federal courts ordered them to follow only a short time ago.

Many scholars also submitted briefs on the side of the school districts. Amy Stuart Wells, an expert on school desegregation, argues there have been long-term benefits from desegregated schools, both for students after they have graduated and for society.

Citing social science research since the Supreme Court鈥檚 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision striking down racial segregation in public schools, her brief says that the benefits have become more apparent over time. Studies of individuals who attended desegregated schools, it says, have found that they are more open-minded, less prejudiced, and less fearful of other races, compared with peers who attended segregated schools.

Ms. Wells, a professor of sociology and education at Teachers College, Columbia University, writes that because of their altered worldviews, many of the graduates say they find themselves far better prepared for life in a global society and more adept at reaching across cultures and nationalities to function in the international economy.

Anticipating some of those arguments, the Pacific Legal Foundation鈥檚 brief urges the high court to 鈥渕ake it clear that no social science exception to the equal-protection clause exists.鈥�

Otherwise, the brief argues, 鈥渢he floodgates will be opened to any and all claims of a compelling state interest based on so-called social science evidence.鈥�